Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm saddened that this question is even being asked. Of course we could have. The United States used to import almost all of its manufactured products from Great Britain. Great Britain placed high tariffs on manufactured goods and therefore had to manufacture everything domestically. The surplus they shipped to America. Then the British adopted the "open market" philosophy. Manufacturers came to America to set up shop. At that time America placed high tariffs on imports and the manufacturing economy blossomed while Great Britain's declined. Then America adopted the "open market" philosophy and manufacturers moved production to Asian which placed high tariffs on imports. Notice a pattern here?
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,601,062 times
Reputation: 9169
Only could have happened if we were willing to see wages go to third world levels. Minimum wage in 1970 was around $1.45/hr in 1970 $, so if the minimum wage had gone back to the $0.25/hr of the 1930's, maybe
I get that we have switched to a service economy, but before that happened was there any realistic way we could have stayed as a manufacturing economy? Or was it an impossible reality?
Germany & Japan certainly had no trouble. And they have some of the highest wages and standards of living in the world too.
Automation has reduced manufacturing jobs since the 19th century, but skilled manufacturing still is in demand, both here and other developed countries (as stated above). There actually is difficulty in filling manufacturing jobs in the US, because they now require more skill than in the past, don't pay quite as well as the GM/Ford heyday, and most companies require a drug test.
I get that we have switched to a service economy, but before that happened was there any realistic way we could have stayed as a manufacturing economy? Or was it an impossible reality?
Of course. You only have to see what other First World countries have done, like Germany and Japan to see it is possible. And the United States is a lot larger and contains far more natural resources that can be used for production then those countries.
IMO, there are two main reasons why the United States gradually allowed massive trade deficits and the pillaging of its manufacturing base. One was the devastation of Europe and Asia in WW2 and the second was the need to maintain Allies during the Cold War.
The first meant that much of Europe's and Asia's manufacturing base was destroyed during WW2 and so American larger corporations pressured the government to sign free trade agreements with other nations. To overcome the traditional internal opposition to free trade by workers and small companies, they pushed free trade as "job creating". So effective was the free trade propaganda that even now we have college professors say nothing about free trade after decades of evidence of job losses and massive trade deficits.
The second reason we tolerated massive trade deficits was the Cold War and the government's belief it had to support foreign countries in order to get their support against the Soviet Union and communism. Thus we allowed large trade deficits with Japan and South Korea so we keep them from going communist and to allow the US military overseas bases. A good example of this is our European allies and Airbus.
Airbus was created in the 1960s by some European countries deliberately to compete with American aerospace companies, an industry that the US dominated. Since the USA was protecting Europe at the time from the Soviet Union, the Americans could have said, abolish Airbus or you are going to protect yourselves. But we did not, we stood aside and allowed a competitor to build up an industry to compete with us, just so we could maintain an alliance.
I get that we have switched to a service economy, but before that happened was there any realistic way we could have stayed as a manufacturing economy? Or was it an impossible reality?
All companies outsource when it makes sense.
Not just American companies, all companies.
Some countries have a very abusive relationship with the common working people and lax pollution standards. American companies, like all companies, would exploit such situations to make some extra bucks. They would close a fairly profitable American manufacturing operation for a more profitable foreign manufacturing operation. I have seen it in my own industry.
This is just a logical extension of operations moving out of the northeast and big cities and into southern US states and smaller towns. These days they happily leave any state for foreign shores if they can manage it.
The USA has the free market system and free markets do whatever they damn well please, including buy influence in governments to facilitate such opportunities.
Companies (at least major corporations) are not people (despite claims to the contrary) and do not have any emotional attachments to their own employees or the communities that sprouted them.
If the USA was a backwater banana republic with living standards like Bangladesh the jobs would be plentiful as companies from all nations would be flowing in to take advantage of the people's misery.
I get that we have switched to a service economy, but before that happened was there any realistic way we could have stayed as a manufacturing economy? Or was it an impossible reality?
It would have been easy for the U.S. to remain an industrial powerhouse and to have lots of industry. Government sabotage via regulation, taxation, prosecution, persecution and dumb treaties have destroyed our industrial economy. Decisions made at federal, state and local levels all contributed.
It would have been easy for the U.S. to remain an industrial powerhouse and to have lots of industry. Government sabotage via regulation, taxation, prosecution, persecution and dumb treaties have destroyed our industrial economy. Decisions made at federal, state and local levels all contributed.
Well then there's your choice in stark contrast. ^^^
An American version of Bangladesh on one hand, as advocated above, or the primarily service economy we have today.
As Brzezenski explains in his book "The Grand Chessboard...
"The three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."
The United States actually propped up Japan and Germany after WWII, and through the Cold War, to keep them dependent on America. And they continue to be dependent on us today, for security, for their stability, and for their economy.
The United States can only maintain this empire through the machinations of the Federal Reserve system. Which allows us to run $550 billion a year trade deficits, and to maintain hundreds of foreign military bases.
It is pointless to compare America to Japan.
And as for Japan, go read about the "Plaza Accords". Japan ultimately will do what we tell them to do, even if it means the collapse of their economy.
Hundreds military bases abroad is a BS number Ron Paul literally pulled from his arse. The fringe conspirologists on the right and on the left fell in love with the number to think about it. As for 550 billions trade deficit, it is deficit in terms of nation states, but corporate oligarchy that runs those deficits by moving their assets from one phisical location to another barely thinks in terms of nation states, they have no deficits. For Capitalism to survive (a little longer) it must consume the Earth. As for American Empire, it is ridiculous just look at the clowns manning the Oval Office, those are some peculiar global dominators. International corporate oligarchy needs to dominate the Globe not to conquer/rule the world on the behalf of USA.
Of course it could. And the US is still a big manufacturing force in the world. We have to remain as such, as our military industrial complex depends on a strong domestic industrial base. If and when the world erupts into war, America must be ready to produce large volumes of guns, bombs, planes, etc, just as we did in WW2. Under such circumstances, the labor costs and such are largely irrelevant. It's all about getting the job done right, no matter what it takes. Never ignore or forget history.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
